Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.37 seconds)
Vinobha H.B. And 39 Ors. vs Hindustan Photo Films And Anr. on 12 September, 1997 cites

Bhagwati Prasad And Ors vs Delhi State Mineral Development ... on 15 December, 1989

21. The other two decisions, namely, Daily R..C. P&T Departments. Union of India, (supra) and Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (supra), show that persons serving for a long period have to be, regularised. Here, the factual position shows that even though all the petitioners were appointed only as trainees for a fixed period they were not permitted after the expiry of the term. They were assigned various work for the last 2 years prior to the impugned order. Hence the respondents are duty bound to consider the length of service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

P. Shanmuganathan vs The Registrar, Tamil University And ... on 10 March, 1997

31. I have also observed that even though the petitioners were called trainees, they are discharging regular work and their services are required They have been paid over time allowances and increment also. Hence the termination when the work is available will be invalid. The above view of mine is supported by a decision of this Court reported in P. Shanmuganathan v. The Registrar, Tamil University, Thanjavur, (supra).
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

K. Rajendran vs Director (Personnel), Project And ... on 6 March, 1991

13. Rajendran, K. v. The Director (Personnel) The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited, (supra) decided by SOMASUNDARAM, J., is a case where termination of service of a worker on the ground of non-renewal of his contract, even though the work for which he was employed subsists, the conduct of the employer resorting to contractual employment for a limited period is held as a device to take it out of Section 2(oo). In that case, the respondent therein selected the petitioner for the post of "messenger" for its Madras Office by the letter dated March 24, 1983 and appointed the petitioner therein for the post of messenger for a period of 44 days. After expiry of the said period, after keeping the petitioner for sometime, ultimately the respondent informed the petitioner that his service is no longer required after the expiry of his tenure and terminated his service immediately. The said order was impugned in that writ petition. The case of the petitioner in that case is that it amounts to Section 2(oo) of the Act. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Management that it amounts to Section 2(bb) of the Act. The learned Judge after considering the earlier case laws elaborately on this subject, ultimately came to the conclusion that "the termination of the service of the petitioner in that case amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act and the Management has not complied with the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Act by paying the retrenchment compensation to the petitioner" and, therefore, quashed the impugned order of termination in that case. The learned Judge has apprised that inspite of terminating the service of the petitioner, the respondent Management in that case attempted to induct fresh persons to do the same work. In such situation, the learned Judge after holding that when the regular work is in existence, the termination is bad without following Section 25-F of the Act. In our case also even though the respondents have explained in the counter- affidavit regarding the financial position after passing the order of termination they attempted to induct new hands in their place. In such a situation the conclusion of SOMASUNDARAM, J., is squarely applicable, to our cases.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next